[0:00] pertains to our first public hearing on ordinance 2026-03.

[0:11] Current and proposed building permit fee rates and proposed additional flat fee

[0:15] are described um as follows. Our current rate is $5

[0:20] per thousand, a project value with a minimum fee of $25.

[0:24] The proposed rate is $6 per thousand or a fraction thereof of project value with

[0:29] a minimum fee of $75. This is a rate increase of 20%.

[0:35] The proposed additional flat fee of $75 or the proposed additional flat fee is

[0:41] $75 with no minimum. This is an increase of 100% from um $0 previously.

[0:53] For example, for a project with a proposed value of 400,000,

[0:58] the permanent fees are calculated um as follows. The current fee structure um

[1:04] with the value based fee of $5 per 400 um would be $5 for each,000 and fraction

[1:10] thereof of propo proposed value would be $2,000.

[1:14] With the proposed fee structure, there would be a flat fee of $75.

[1:18] Then the value based fee um would be $6 time 400

[1:24] um which is $6 for each thousand and a fraction thereof of proposed value for a

[1:29] total of $2,400. And so the total permit fee in the

[1:34] proposed structure would be $2,475.

[1:41] This is an increase of 20% in value based fee and 24% in total permit fee.

[1:48] pull up now. There we go. This these are the examples

[1:52] I just ran through here.

[1:57] Okay. Um for trade permits, demolition permits, signs, and display structures,

[2:02] the original fee is a $25 minimum when when there's a permit required or $5 per

[2:08] thousand of work beyond the minimum. The proposed fee here would be $75 flat fee

[2:13] plus $6 per,000 of work. For manufactured homes, the original fee

[2:21] is $150 per single wide and $175 per double wide. Proposed fee would be $75

[2:28] flat fee and again $6 per thousand of project value plus any applicable trade

[2:34] permits.

[2:39] We also have reinspection fees and special use permits when required by

[2:42] local or state statutes. The original fees for this is $25 per additional

[2:48] inspection and $25 for special use permit. Proposed fees would go to $75

[2:54] per additional inspection and also $75 for a special use permit.

[2:59] There is also language added to define being ready for an inspection,

[3:03] expectations of inspectors, and access being provided to sites for inspections.

[3:12] We have some new proposed fees. Um, we propose a fee for stop work order of

[3:18] $100 plus $50 per site visit. Work without a permit would be $250.

[3:25] A temporary co is $150 plus $150 per month. Um, a plan amendment would be $50

[3:32] minimum and a canceled permit a $75 minimum.

[3:38] » [snorts]

[3:41] » Some projected revenue impacts of the fees proposed for the building permit

[3:45] fees are shown here. The additional $75 flat fee proposal. Um the potential

[3:53] revenue there would be $49,125. This is taking the $75 flat fee and

[4:00] multiplying it by the $655 annual average annual permits.

[4:06] The value base fee increase from $5 per thousand to $6 per thousand would

[4:11] generate a fee rate increase of $71,600.

[4:16] The projected average annual revenue is $478,725

[4:23] and currently the FY27 operating budget is $433,366.

[4:30] Um this is noted to be prior to inclusion of the 3 and a half% salary

[4:35] increase and benefits transfer.

[4:39] This um equates to a revenue operating budget recovery rate of 110%.

[4:46] And again that's prior to the salary increase being transferred into that

[4:50] departmental budget. So in conclusion, um there's an

[4:56] estimated minimal impact to consumers with these fee increases. The proposed

[5:01] fee adjustments move the department to estimated full operational st

[5:05] sustainability. Virginia law requires these funds to

[5:09] support building department functions. Additional revenue supports code

[5:13] enforcement, staff retention, facility maintenance, and long-term operational

[5:17] stability.

[5:20] So, next step is to answer any questions you might have. Um, then conduct the

[5:25] public hearing and consider adoption of the ordinance.

[5:28] » This is public hearing.

[5:32] » Yes, just one. >> Yes. Public hearing number one.

[5:38] » I've got comments, but public hear. But no questions for her for

[5:44] clarification. Okay. Anybody have questions for Candy?

[5:51] All right, hearing none. Um, we're going to open the public hearing for O2026-03

[5:59] amendment to chapter 4 buildings article 2 building code.

[6:04] All right, we have no one sign up. I have a feeling we have a taker.

[6:13] Please state your name and address. Uh, and if you are representing yourself,

[6:17] you get three minutes. >> Yeah, I'm just my name is Phil Pervis

[6:21] [clears throat] 509 made land uh shipment, Virginia. Um, I just hadn't

[6:27] really had a lot of time to read up on this, but it seems like 150% increase in

[6:32] some of these fees is a little excessive. I mean, we're dealing with uh

[6:37] extremely [clears throat] high building cost as it is. We're trying to get make

[6:41] uh homes affordable for young people and every time we turn around we're adding

[6:47] you know we're this adds no value just adds cost to the house. It makes it

[6:52] difficult for younger people to uh you know to to buy or or even think about

[6:59] it. I mean it's almost out of u range for most young people uh today as it is.

[7:05] But I I think we really ought to take a hard look at I mean I know that things

[7:10] are going up. I mean, labor costs are are higher for the uh building officials

[7:15] and everything, but 150% increase on some of these things, I think, is really

[7:21] [clears throat] excessive and it's just creative hardship for uh not only I

[7:26] mean, the builder has to add uh cost to build which is passed right on to the um

[7:34] to the uh whoever's purchasing or whoever they're building for. And I

[7:38] think if we're trying to want to try to make housing more affordable affordable

[7:43] for people here in Nelson County. We need to take a hard look at some of

[7:46] these things and see if we can't trim it back a little bit. I know that like I

[7:50] said, everybody's cost is going up and I know uh certainly the building

[7:55] inspections have uh have, you know, the raises and and uh everything. But I

[8:03] think you get my drift here. It's just that just seems a little excessive. Uh I

[8:08] think for one, you know, going in and some of us from zero to over 100% is

[8:14] just uh really high, but I think I'm opposed to that for what it's worth.

[8:19] Thank you. >> Thank you.

[8:22] So, no one else has signed up. Any other takers?

[8:28] We're going to co close public hearing.

[8:34] All right. Any discussion questions? >> Um, Candy real quick. So, in

[8:42] conversations with those the building community, we do understand and we are

[8:45] very much interested in the retention of our employees. So, some changes within

[8:51] the change of fees and how we're structuring it is reasonable. Um,

[8:57] especially the ones where, you know, he's getting called out because there's

[9:00] no permit. You know, yes, there needs to be a fee there. the standard 75 makes

[9:04] sense. Uh TCO's that's a very reasonable expectation. Um,

[9:10] I think one that I would probably bode well amongst the builder community and

[9:16] the consumer would be having the uh having the um

[9:22] instead of doing a the flat fee, just do the minimum as 75 $75 and then increase

[9:30] it from five to six and then we keep the rest of the language as is if that makes

[9:37] sense. Um, I I just think it's a little bit

[9:41] unnecessary to add in a flat random $75 fee because certainly you might perceive

[9:47] that as a uh a small number in the whole story. But let's I I think it should be

[9:52] a $75 minimum that takes it up to I think it's essentially $10,000 worth of

[9:57] work. I think that is kind of like that arbit not arbitrary number but that

[10:00] number would fit in. And then the mechanicals I think that's reasonable to

[10:05] be 75. All that makes sense. I just think we should do the five to six and

[10:10] just do the min a minimum of $75. That's my only take.

[10:23] » It's almost semantics. It's the same thing.

[10:26] » I mean, it's going to be 75. >> No, it's not 75 if up to $10,000. After

[10:31] that, it goes if it's above that, then you get to the $6 per thousand, which

[10:36] would be more than

[10:44] Yeah. The original fee is 20 $25 minimum and then the $5 per thousand.

[10:49] » Yeah. >> So, you're proposing to do $75 minimum,

[10:53] » $6 per thousand, >> correct?

[11:00] I mean, how many building permits fall into the minimum? I mean,

[11:07] » percentage. >> Quite a few.

[11:10] [clears throat] >> Can you come forward?

[11:16] » Sorry, wrong microphone. >> I don't I don't have the exact number,

[11:18] but I believe it would be it would be roughly.

[11:22] » She wants microphone. Go >> the mic.

[11:25] I don't have the exact number of the permits that would be that would fall

[11:29] into the minimum range. Uh but it would be somewhere if I had to guess it would

[11:33] be professional guess but somewhere in the

[11:38] 20% mark. Uh the the $75 flat fee

[11:45] uh versus a $75 minimum. And you know this is just rough math. Um the the $6

[11:54] th000 versus the $5 on a thousand would increase by and again Kent just went

[11:58] over this but and I'm going off of memory of this a month ago. I haven't

[12:03] looked at it since but uh that would increase uh potentially

[12:09] increase based on the last four years of averages um by 20%. Right. and uh and

[12:16] then that would get us just under

[12:21] the 20% would get us just under operating budget cost. So if we did not

[12:27] do a flat fee um and I can pull these numbers up, I can

[12:33] go grab my iPad and pull these numbers up. uh then it would it would bring us

[12:38] right just under operating budget >> currently

[12:41] » current operating budget uh with the 20% increase and and and with the $75 flat

[12:47] fee and the other fees included hypothetically

[12:52] it could bring us to operating costs that may be slightly over slightly under

[12:56] on an average >> currently

[12:59] » currently. Yeah. Right. Uh the $75 flat fee uh was

[13:07] was an option for the board to consider to take us beyond

[13:13] » operating budget. Uh so so I would not say again right it would be the board's

[13:20] decision uh the building department myself the building code official we

[13:24] will do and work with whatever it is that we need to work with we'll figure

[13:29] it out um but we're tasked with

[13:36] giving you viable options and those are the viable options.

[13:41] » Remind me again the last time that we updated these

[13:45] It's um it's different depending on which which um code sections you look

[13:50] at. Um I don't have this one in front of me. I think some of them were early

[13:54] 2000s, some >> so easily 20 years,

[13:57] » I think. So yeah. >> Yeah.

[13:59] » Yeah. And then some that we'll [clears throat] see here in a minute

[14:03] with ENS andor >> Yeah. I'm using devices that maybe

[14:09] like >> and I think kind of in response to that

[14:14] also what has increased exponentially is the cost of building structures. So a

[14:19] house 20 years ago $5. Correct? Yes. So that makes sense. But those structures

[14:24] are now double if not triple what they once were able to build back in 2002. So

[14:29] you're getting that you're still getting a lot of that value just on the

[14:33] inflationary factor of construction. Um, we see that a lot with how we treat

[14:39] the real estate tax rate as well. We live off of the inflation of it.

[14:42] Normally, we don't increase it. Um, generally speaking, I mean, building

[14:48] departments don't normally run a surplus in fees to operate. And that I can

[14:53] probably speak for most neighbors of the localities around us. They don't operate

[14:57] on a surplus. It's very I don't know any that do. Maybe some of the big guys are.

[15:03] Oh, >> I'm just going to say based on that

[15:05] math, it could be in an hour where they're not operating in a surplus.

[15:09] » It could be what? >> If we go back to the potential of

[15:13] running into a surplus, >> yeah,

[15:17] » salaries are changing all the time. >> Sure.

[15:20] » One could change today. >> One could change and then immediately

[15:22] send Yeah, I see. I >> So that is not an argument because it's

[15:26] not a long it's not a large number. >> The difference

[15:29] » the difference >> and that's just the operating budget.

[15:31] there are a lot more costs that go >> like they need a new building

[15:35] » towards you know >> it's falling into a creek.

[15:39] » So So yeah so like so like the building right we we we may not necessarily be

[15:46] or have planned to build a a brand new building. Uh but there are things that

[15:51] we're looking into currently. Uh I've requested um a specific amount of money

[15:56] in the CIP, the capital improvement project fund. Uh that was given to us

[16:01] $115,000 towards u you know having someone come out and look at the

[16:06] building and do a structural assessment. It is believed that our building um was

[16:10] built on back fill unbeknownst to anyone. Correct. U there have been some

[16:16] erosion lately based on weather events and things of that nature, some cracks

[16:20] in the building and um we should probably have it looked at. So, you

[16:24] know, that money, not not to mention just the regular cost, you know, the

[16:29] people come service our HBAC, Southern Air, uh when the maintenance department

[16:34] comes over and works on things and or fixes things, the light bills, the the

[16:39] the personal property tech, you know what I'm saying? Like, and then

[16:44] replacement costs. You know, those things aren't taken into the annual

[16:48] budget. We have three vehicles. We need three vehicles. Um the Ford Explorer

[16:53] that I have is currently, you know, on it on its very last leg. We're doing all

[16:57] we can, but even at a $20,000 per vehicle, if we, you know, we're buying

[17:03] them as cheap as we can get them off of four fleet with all the discounts, uh

[17:07] that's still a three vehicle replacement every five years. So you know those are

[17:11] additional things on the budget that aren't taken into consideration for that

[17:16] number >> right and how we treat those things

[17:20] obviously there's motor pool we kind of try to source that that's kind of a

[17:23] though I understand it is related to the building department you know we look at

[17:27] the grants of all the departments and how we so I madam chair I don't know

[17:32] what the best mechanism you would like to kind of get to a conclusion on that

[17:36] I'm generally supportive of all the fees that have been proposed with those

[17:40] increases I only have uh objections to the minimum

[17:45] to flat. I if to make it simpler um we should just see if we have a consensus

[17:51] on that. We don't have to do a vote but just generally get an idea because if I

[17:55] don't if there's no consensus then there's no sense in having

[17:59] » I would like to also add I don't mean to interject or make this work and I and I

[18:03] can talk Mr. Perves later about this but there is nothing in there that is higher

[18:08] than a 20% increase or right

[18:11] » a or a new fee. So the things that are you know 100% increase that is there was

[18:18] never a fee to you know there was no stop order fee now there is one so

[18:24] that's a that's a 100% increase everything else is

[18:28] » nothing higher than >> none of the existing fees are increasing

[18:31] 150% >> none of the existing fees they never

[18:33] existed >> it's it's just increasing um

[18:36] » you know from $5 to to $6 there is one that is the um uhh there is one that has

[18:43] changed significantly that is the manufactured homes

[18:48] » that one could >> and that yeah that one needs that's

[18:51] that's a good one to change >> but uh but right and that was a general

[18:54] consensus among neighboring localities and all of the builders etc and all of

[18:59] these things were looked into so um I just don't want Mr.

[19:04] or anyone listening to this to think that somehow in here we're price gouging

[19:10] or some kind of this is literally just trying to break even and and

[19:15] » anyway >> so for me I you know whether $75 is the

[19:20] number or not that's debatable but there is a cost of having to pull up the

[19:29] the the application or pull out the piece of paper and fill it in and

[19:33] process it. And that doesn't matter if it's a $10,000 job or a $400,000 job,

[19:39] you know, the initial cost. So a flat fee to me for each application I support

[19:44] because the the amount of work for staff um and then um now whether 75 is the

[19:50] right number or not I don't know but I I do um see similarities in my work

[19:56] environment and and there are certain set expenses to do a transaction um no

[20:03] matter how big or small the transaction is

[20:05] » and that's that's why there's a minimum fee as well because if you're only

[20:09] doing10 $10,000 of work, which can be HVAC system. It could be some mechanical

[20:14] changes within a house. Yeah, I agree with you. That's where that 75. I'm just

[20:19] saying that when you start getting into projects that are hitting that three,

[20:22] four, five, yes, I understand it's minimal, but at the same time, showing

[20:26] some level of a, hey, you're going to be doing another $100,000. Well, six times

[20:30] another hundred, you know, it's a lot more money. It's a lot of money. I mean,

[20:34] these permits are not cheap these days, as people in the audience have

[20:38] indicated, and you start doing two 300,000. Yeah, you're right. 75 bucks

[20:43] seems like nothing, but you compound that with the 8,000 things through the

[20:46] course of a job site for a client and then change. Yeah, it does start adding

[20:51] up. Um, and again, Madam Chair, you can just get a consensus and then we can

[20:56] exit this conversation. So, >> what's the expectation for tonight? Are

[21:00] we expect are we voting on these um ordinances tonight or are we taking

[21:04] these into consideration? What are we doing?

[21:07] » I I felt that it was prudent that the building community have enough time to

[21:13] know where we stand so they have time to prepare by January.

[21:18] » That was the general consensus at the last.

[21:20] » So the answer is both to >> I would love that.

[21:22] » Yeah. Okay. [laughter] I got it. Um, and you know, I wouldn't be opposed to

[21:28] making the minimum $100 and not having a flat fee.

[21:33] » I can do that. >> You know, that's

[21:35] » um >> 100 bucks.

[21:37] » Again, we have to understand that there's a certain amount of work that

[21:40] that office has to do. No matter whether the job is a $10,000 job or 100,000 or

[21:45] 500, there's some initial startup work that has to be done. It it would be

[21:50] better to have the minimum at 100 to 150 bucks than to throw that flat rate

[21:55] because I think 20%. >> How about we ease into 100 as a minimum

[22:00] and do away with flat >> 25.

[22:01] » Yeah. Okay. So 100 minimum.

[22:05] » All right. Anyone else? There's two >> five of us at this thing. Anybody else

[22:09] at 100? >> 100 minimum.

[22:10] » All right. Consensus at 100. Thoughts. Ernie

[22:13] » going once. Going twice. >> Um

[22:16] and that's basically two 10 grand. Yeah, >> I I haven't done I haven't done the

[22:20] math, but it's going to alter those numbers significantly. If you guys are

[22:23] thinking about, you know, things that you'll be thinking about some other

[22:27] time. >> If if you're thinking about changing

[22:29] what's on here, we should not take action tonight until we have some

[22:33] numbers to compare. And I think that's true.

[22:36] » Um um which is why which is why not >> No. So, um, but you know, it's it it's

[22:45] one thing to focus on building costs and contractors and such. It's another thing

[22:49] to focus on our department. And, um, and I think that this does value to both of

[22:55] them. I mean, if it's been 20 years since anything's increased, that's, you

[22:58] know, 1% a year over 20 years or less than that, less than 1% a year. I mean,

[23:03] that's that's, you know, infantestimal in my, you know, negligible, you know,

[23:07] as far as I'm concerned. But um but you know being able to you know retain our

[23:13] staff and give them the support that they need to do the job they have. Um

[23:17] you know I I kind of weigh in on that side. I I would like to add that a that

[23:22] a significant amount of time and effort was put into

[23:27] into this and I I do realize that you know job costs are high and things of

[23:31] that nature but the the operating costs and again if we're operate to break even

[23:39] this is this is where we are right like if we don't want to do that that's fine

[23:44] but uh you know the $75 flat fee it was taken into consideration okay How long

[23:49] does it take to process a permit? What does it go through? How much paperwork's

[23:53] involved? How much involved? How much personnel power is involved? And how

[23:57] many inspections on average per this? Uh, you know, because if somebody says,

[24:02] "Okay, well, I mean, people come in all the time and they say, "Oh, well, my

[24:06] project's only $3,000." >> Okay, well,

[24:10] » that's a h 100 bucks. >> Yeah. But if they come in and say it's,

[24:15] you know, $9,000 and then we've got to go out there and do three inspections

[24:20] and process a permit, then someone has to handle that permit processing for an

[24:26] hour and a half. And then we've got to drive out there at an hourly rate of,

[24:30] you know, however long it takes one person to go out there, three separate

[24:33] times. >> Yeah.

[24:34] » I I'm just saying like those things were taken into consideration before the flat

[24:38] fees and the 600 bel. And I I think and I I completely understand whether

[24:43] whether it's the objective of this board to have a surplus base building

[24:47] department or net neutral whatever it may be. I don't know at this point I

[24:54] most people see the building department in its in its you know uh not

[24:58] necessarily invention but really it was to have a safe affordable mechanism for

[25:02] people to build structures and have safe quality housing. Right? It's the same

[25:06] thing with the health department. We all know the health department does not

[25:09] operate on a break even or a surplus which both of those I guarantee you are

[25:14] you know of some level important of equal importance.

[25:20] » Um you know I I really do think we would be the minimum is a great number if

[25:24] we're doing 100 bucks is a minimum. I think it's very reasonable. U most

[25:30] » Am I done talking? >> Yes. [laughter]

[25:33] » Whatever the board decides Yeah. >> We'll make work. And I I think we can

[25:37] also address the retention needs of this building department as well as we do

[25:41] this. >> Yeah. So, um if if you're going to be

[25:45] changing anything here, I'd just like to see the numbers first.

[25:47] » Well, it How does everyone else feel about that? That's one person's opinion.

[25:52] » I think so. We do know one solid number and that's going from five to six, which

[25:56] is a $71,000 increase. So, that's I don't know. These are

[26:03] » There you go. So going from five to six creates another a new $71,000.

[26:09] Okay. Now that is is that including the additional $75 flat fee number or is

[26:15] that just the five to six? >> Just the five to6.

[26:18] » So just the five to six. Okay. And then in addition to that flat fee is

[26:24] producing 49. Now, we're not taking that $49,000

[26:29] and making it uh zero because as and I'm not using the number that Mr. Mars has

[26:36] used. He said 20% of those permits are hitting the minimum.

[26:39] » Right. >> Right. So, out of that 655

[26:42] 100 times 20 time 6 is about 30. I mean, you know,

[26:47] you're still getting another five $6,000 right on top of that 71. So the so just

[26:53] interjecting [clears throat] the current annual

[26:57] operating cost based on four years of um four years of averages is $432,000.

[27:05] That's the annual operating cost. The current average annual revenue based on

[27:11] those same four years is $358,000.

[27:15] If you bring in the permit fee of 61,000 just that it could potentially uh based

[27:24] on averages bring us up to 4296 >> which would still fall short from the

[27:31] 432. >> That's not counting the minimum of 100

[27:35] though >> and the three and a half. Well,

[27:39] » I mean I mean based on that we we currently have a minimum of 25 up to

[27:46] 5,000. So if we did a minimum of 100 up to a th00and, I couldn't do the math off

[27:52] the top of my head, but I mean I feel like that would increase by another, you

[27:56] know, four or 5%, which is, you know, maybe maybe four four or five% versus

[28:03] the >> So about 16 more grand.

[28:06] » Yeah. >> So that would put us in a surface at

[28:08] that point. >> It would it would put us in a surplus.

[28:10] the the additional $75 fee would fix.

[28:15] » Yeah, it would it would add an additional

[28:21] » 716 which I think was about 14%. Another 14%. Yeah. [snorts]

[28:29] » I have a question. If we're thinking about going up from 75

[28:35] to 100, do we have to have another public hearing?

[28:39] » Maybe.

[28:43] It could >> because it's higher than what was

[28:46] posted. >> That is correct.

[28:49] » Yeah. >> I mean, it's correct that it's higher

[28:52] than it was posted. Um, yeah, I would have to check to see on

[28:56] that because that does apply for taxes, but I'm not sure it applies to fees.

[29:05] » That's a valid question. [snorts]

[29:11] All right. Well, based on not knowing that, I guess we have to defer vote if

[29:16] the consensus is 100 flat fee. >> No, it was a consensus of 100 minimum

[29:21] and no flat fee is was I was

[29:29] » thoughts. It's fine.

[29:35] » I'm just going to put it out there. I'm disgruntled. We're not voting on this

[29:37] tonight. [clears throat] >> Yes, you are. [laughter] But that being

[29:41] said, I don't think that we're up against a hard enough deadline that

[29:46] voting in September is a problem. >> We we have also announced to the home

[29:50] builders association that it is underway. So, it's not [snorts] as if

[29:55] the homebuilders aren't expecting something to happen.

[29:57] » All right, we're deferring vote. We'll move on to ordinance 02026-04

[30:03] amendments chapter 6 licenses permits business regulations article one in the

[30:07] general. >> So just to be clear um in preparation

[30:11] for next month um you'd like to see some numbers on what the $100 minimum

[30:17] » minimum yes >> would generate.

[30:19] » Yeah. >> And whether we need

[30:22] » another public hearing or not. >> Okay. We will.

[30:34] All right. We'll move on to second public hearing tonight on ordinance

[30:39] 2026-4.

[30:44] Okay. And this has to do with licenses, permits, and business regulations um

[30:50] related to fees for inspection of amusement devices and permits.

[30:57] Okay. So, for amusement device fees, um, nonprofit organizations remain exempt

[31:03] from the fee schedule. So, the original fees are shown on the left, proposed

[31:08] fees shown on the right. The kitty fee would go from $15 to $55.

[31:15] A the major ride from $25 would um be more broken out into a circular flat

[31:23] ride of less than 20 ft would be $75. Spectacular ride would go from $45 to

[31:30] $100. Um there's a new zipline fee of $150 each. A new coaster greater than 30

[31:38] ft of $200. a new coaster greater than 60 feet to $400.

[31:44] There would be an annual permit um fee that would go from $25 per device. Um

[31:53] the annual permit would be $0. We would remove that and then add a new

[31:58] reinspection fee of half the regular inspection fee for each.

[32:05] And then we also added the state code definition of a movement device.

[32:12] And those are pretty much all of those changes. So happy to answer any

[32:16] questions before you conduct the public hearing.

[32:19] » Are we expecting a roller coaster anytime soon?

[32:22] » Massiey's million. >> So that's my my seriously though my

[32:27] question is where do we see these fees being implement? I mean, what's an

[32:32] example of where this might come into play?

[32:34] » That I can't answer because the only one I know of is the mass

[32:37] » and that's nonpro can answer that question.

[32:44] » Did you go back to the >> Yeah. So, so

[32:50] » yeah. So, annual permit.

[32:58] I mean, I could see a zip line up the winter green, you know, one them putting

[33:02] in a zip line or something like that, maybe.

[33:04] » Yeah. Is that for your backyard, too, though?

[33:06] » There's actually some new language about that to where we're not going to be

[33:10] going to um

[33:14] wintergreen for their snow tube and things of that nature because they are

[33:18] um exempt from the amusement device regulation. It's going to save our

[33:22] department quite a bit of liability and time and personnel.

[33:27] etc. And they will be um through because of you know through the Virginia music

[33:33] device regulations uh they will simply just have their inspections done by

[33:38] their insurance company like every other snowing device. That said, there are

[33:43] things up there such as the rock climbing wall, um the Ninja Warrior

[33:48] course, and some other things uh that fall into this. So, uh, really the new

[33:53] zip line, the new coaster, and the new coaster, while they seem kind of comical

[33:57] right now while we're looking at them, it really just kind of lines us up for

[34:01] anything that may happen in the future. These are fees that are um kind of I

[34:06] mean, they are typical in these types of fees. Uh, they fall

[34:14] this list falls directly from the uh Virginia Ausement Device Regulation FE

[34:18] chart. Those numbers are the numbers that can be charged uh from that chart.

[34:25] And really all I'm attempting to do is update this section of our fee addendum

[34:32] to match current 2026 law so that in 2036 we will still not be behind the

[34:39] power curve 26 years 20 30 probably 30 some years like we are uh right now.

[34:46] There's even some language change in here that had to be changed from the old

[34:51] regulations to the new regulations. Uh but again, this is right in line with

[34:57] all of the other localities. I want to make sure that like Candy said, the

[35:02] nonprofits will not be affected. Uh so our annual um

[35:09] uh Routin Club and Rockfish Valley Fire Department are both nonprofits. They're

[35:14] not going to be affected by this. Uh this is more along the lines of if new

[35:19] people come in or some type of business that we are unaware of. I mean, we are

[35:25] we are in some I don't say weird times, but we're in some fast-paced growing

[35:30] people have the knowledge in their pocket, the world's knowledge in their

[35:34] pocket, AI, they can I mean people are coming up with all kinds of things and

[35:38] people have come into my office, Sony's office, and even said, "Hey, I'm

[35:44] proposing I'm just thinking about an amusement park. I'm thinking about this.

[35:47] I'm thinking about that." And you know those kind of things to me go oh my gosh

[35:52] like we don't want to be behind the power curve if somebody comes in here

[35:55] and actually does fill out an SVP or something for fill in the blank. Right.

[36:00] The building department wants to be prepared for those things.

[36:04] » Okay. Any other questions? All right. We're going to open up a

[36:08] public hearing for ordinance 02026-04.

[36:15] We have no one signed up. Is there anyone that just has a burning desire?

[36:21] All right. Hearing none, we're closing public hearing for ordinance 0206-04.

[36:29] Any discussion? >> That's good out. It's ramping you up.

[36:34] » I will entertain a motion. >> Madam Chair, I move that we approve

[36:37] ordinance 02026-4

[36:42] as presented. Second.

[36:45] » All right. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

[36:49] Candy, would you like to do a roll call vote?

[36:51] » Yes. Mr. Bar? >> Yes.

[36:53] » Mr. Reed? >> Yes.

[36:54] » Mr. Rutherford? >> Yes.

[36:55] » Mr. Lahan? >> No.

[36:57] » Dr. Lincoln? >> Yes.

[37:01] » You know, you joke about the coaster thing, but didn't mass not a roller

[37:06] coaster, but one of those. It's almost like you sit down on a thing and you're

[37:09] on a track. One of those type of coasters.

[37:11] » A mountain coaster. >> Yeah, a mountain coaster.

[37:13] » I'd ride that. I think I think they just put open one more maybe.

[37:18] Anyway, >> uh ordinance 2026-05

[37:21] amendments chapter 9 appendix A fees. Okay,

[37:27] this ordinance is pertaining to a version of sediment control and land

[37:31] disturbance. Um the original fees um

[37:37] were based on complaints and special site visits. Um well these these were

[37:42] not addressed. proposed fee would impose a new $75 per substantiated complaint

[37:48] driven or unscheduled site visit that resulted in necessary permitting. So

[37:53] that's a new fee.

[37:58] This chart is pertaining to land disturbance inspection fees. The

[38:02] original fee um at the beginning and end of project was $35.

[38:07] Proposed fee uh at the beginning and end is $100.

[38:11] um inspections once every eight weeks would be $100. Once every eight weeks um

[38:17] is proposed to go to $200. The once every four weeks inspection would be is

[38:23] $225 and then it's proposed to go to $325.

[38:28] There's no change to inspection fees for once every two weeks at $450.

[38:36] And those are all the changes proposed there.

[38:40] Happy to answer questions on these before the public hearing.

[38:49] » Any questions? >> All right. Um, you want to do that after

[38:53] the public hearing? >> Okay. Thank you.

[38:58] » All right. We're going to open up the public hearing for uh ordinance

[39:02] 02026-05.

[39:07] No one has signed up. But Mr. Pervvis has something to say.

[39:15] » Just for the record, state your name and address again. [snorts]

[39:18] » Pervis 509 shipment, Virginia. And I guess uh my

[39:26] what's spinning in my head here, you know, I know that that we're we're

[39:29] raising uh fees and everything, but we've got these guys employed. We're

[39:34] paying them a salary for whatever it is for eight hours a day. And if they're if

[39:40] if that's part of their job and they're going out and doing doing these

[39:44] inspections, if they're not doing these inspections, they're they're sitting at

[39:48] the office. And I know we have expenses in getting to and from a job. I

[39:53] understand that. But on all of not just the the land disturbance but on the

[39:58] other permits that I commented on before. Um you know there there is

[40:03] paperwork that has to be done but they're they're they're in the you know

[40:07] they they're in the office for eight hours a day and that's kind of their job

[40:12] is somebody has got to pull paperwork. That is somebody's job. So my question

[40:18] is and I understand that there you know here again you know salaries and and

[40:24] vehicles and all this other things but I but at the same time you know we're

[40:30] paying each of these guys a salary for for the work that they're doing and then

[40:35] we're charging that's already there and then we want to add additional fees on

[40:41] top of of that to substantiate other things. I that just doesn't quite sit

[40:48] real well with me. And I know, like I said, I know that everybody has cost

[40:52] increase. I mean, if you're in any kind of business, things go up. Gas is more

[40:57] expensive and everything, but when it comes to pulling paperwork and, you

[41:02] know, doing fees, we've got we've got some they've got somebody in there that

[41:06] that takes the permit fee and you fill out the form, you hand it to them, and

[41:11] that's their job. So, I just wonder why why do we need to increase the fees?

[41:18] Do y'all get my drift on what I'm saying? On top of of I mean, we've

[41:23] already paying them a salary. They've got to be doing they they've been

[41:26] operating under those guidelines for all these years. And now we're just adding

[41:32] more and more uh fees, which here again is is passed right on down the line. And

[41:40] it's uh you know it affects it affects everything. Affects anybody that's in

[41:45] business as a builder. He's got to add those fees into his cost of building

[41:50] which is transferred right to the buyer which you know we want you know we're

[41:54] trying to the big push for affordable housing. Well every time we raise a fee

[41:59] it makes it that much more unaffordable. That's basically

[42:03] » Thank you.

[42:08] » Anyone else? I'm going to close public hearing.

[42:16] Candy, remind me again what sort of deficit we're in

[42:23] » with the building department.

[42:34] The FY27 operational budget is 433 366 >> and we brought in 300 something.

[42:41] » Current average annual revenue is 358.

[42:47] » We're almost there. Going to six and then all these roller coasters.

[42:51] » Oh no, we didn't vote on that. We're still at five.

[42:54] » We'll probably six.

[42:59] Yeah. The the other thing I'd like to say about this is that there there was

[43:02] mention at the earlier on in the earlier

[43:05] proposal to maybe you know do something incremental and look at it again. Um I

[43:11] don't think that does a service to anybody to have to come back when you

[43:17] know we know cost of living and and inflation are going to happen. We know

[43:20] we need to be prepared for that. We don't want to have to come back and try

[43:23] to make it up which is the position we're in now. And um and you want the

[43:28] building community to know what to expect. you know, you don't want to be,

[43:32] you know, sitting here again every, you know, two, three years to to increase

[43:38] fees that, you know, on the one hand, you know, they're significant. They

[43:44] aren't substantial. And, uh, you know, the costs of,

[43:49] um, you know, of of keeping a quality building department, having them be

[43:53] where they need to be when they need to be there, and showing them the level of

[43:57] support that they certainly deserve. Um, I'm certainly in favor of that. And the

[44:03] other thing is is that if we don't have enough money to cover what happens in

[44:06] building inspections, where do we end up?

[44:09] » We end up looking at the biggest, you know, uh, expense that we have is the

[44:13] schools >> and we end up, you know, doing what we

[44:17] can based on what we have proposed in terms of taxes to be able to get the

[44:21] schools what they want. But if we don't have a sustainable, you know, economic

[44:26] situation with our other departments, then you're always looking at,

[44:32] you know, the schools looking like the bad guy in terms of revenues when it's

[44:36] actually built into other places. Kind of defers that.

[44:40] » All right. Anybody have any comments on the land

[44:45] disturbance ordinance? >> U Madam Chair?

[44:49] » Yes. Um I I have no protest with this change in fees. Uh generally this is a

[44:54] good good change. Yeah 100 bucks it's reasonable. Um you still have the uh I

[45:00] guess you have the agreements in lie of ENS plans of course and this just allows

[45:04] for the typical inspections to be done. I think this will probably and do we

[45:08] have a number of how much this will increase because this should apply to at

[45:11] least 50% of our 655 permits.

[45:16] » Yes. So >> that's that's a pretty big jump.

[45:20] » Yeah. So while while it does appear to be while it does appear to be a

[45:25] significant increase, land service permits only make up about

[45:29] I'd say 5% of our permits or less. And uh so I mean we're and and they fall

[45:36] into low uh I say low maintenance and high

[45:42] maintenance but essentially what I mean is uh you know some of them Renaissance

[45:47] Ridge up mountain some things like that um there's no way we'll ever break even

[45:53] on those is you know the personnel power that goes into just consistent

[45:59] nonstop all week long talking to people every day for your requests, site

[46:05] visits, complaints, just non-stop. And then uh but your typical but your

[46:10] typical one falls into these categories, right? Uh your typical one is uh you

[46:15] know like if it falls in we have a scoring chart and if it falls into this

[46:20] specific scoring chart where the land's super flat, no roadways, no property

[46:24] lines, uh no um waterways etc. uh vertical slope etc. you know, it's just

[46:31] it falls into a scoring category where it's wants to begin, wants to end super

[46:35] low. Um,

[46:40] problematic. U so you know that $100 really takes

[46:45] into account the taking in of the uh permit applications and then the

[46:51] processing of the permit applications and then the review of the uh

[46:58] well you know there's there's a lot of administrative parts but this portion of

[47:02] it is more along the lines of the associated fee that where an inspector

[47:06] is going to have to go out um you know essentially just man cow personnel hours

[47:11] averaged from You know, it it may be in shipment and that would be great, but it

[47:16] also may be at the top of Spyro Yakap where we currently have two or three or

[47:21] on Chicken Hollow where it takes literally almost an hour just to get to

[47:26] that location to do the inspection and then turn around and and go to a

[47:31] different location. I would also like to address

[47:35] comment earlier. Uh there is no one sitting in our office doing nothing.

[47:40] Everyone's I didn't just I I didn't mean to imply he did. I just want to make

[47:45] sure that I go on record saying that these cars are moving non-stop. These

[47:50] inspectors are inspecting non-stop there. There's a serious workload in the

[47:55] building department. I just want to make sure that that is conveyed to everyone.

[48:00] » Am I wrong in assuming that there's also classes DEQ dealing with DEEQ things

[48:06] like that when you're dealing with sediment and all that jazz? So it takes

[48:10] another exceptional level of knowledge to deal with this particular issue.

[48:15] » Therefore, it costs more money. >> You have to be certified as an

[48:19] inspector. You have to be certified as a plans examiner. You have to be certified

[48:22] as a program administrator. >> All right. Any more questions?

[48:27] » Yes. On the complaint driven, is there a limit? Like can somebody call in every

[48:33] day for that $75 fee? >> Yeah. No. if it's substantiated and

[48:37] you've already been out there, you've already talked to the person. So, let's

[48:39] say John Smith is doing something that is um you know that would require a land

[48:45] disturbance permit whether they're doing it egregiously or they just didn't know

[48:50] regardless of their neighbor calls and they say, "Hey, my neighbor John Smith,

[48:54] I think they need a fill in the blank." Okay, we go out there. If they don't,

[48:59] then there's no fee involved. Hey John, you're doing you're well within the

[49:03] boundaries and guidelines parameters of not needing this. These are the

[49:07] parameters. Please don't go outside of them. Also, you know, talk to them about

[49:11] the neighbor, the waterway, the everything. Uh but if they don't fall

[49:16] into those regulations, then they don't need it. But now, let's say they do need

[49:19] it. Okay. Well, it's substantiated. We're going to talk to John Smith and

[49:24] John Smith's going to stop what he's doing or come in immediately following

[49:29] the next day, etc. We're going to work it out. We're going to stop

[49:34] unless it's something really bad. It's it's an amicable agreement between us

[49:38] and John Smith. John Smith comes in, gets all this permitting,

[49:42] and then we move forward with the process. Let's say

[49:46] six people call in. It's still just one. It's one fee. It's one visit to John.

[49:52] Now, let's say John doesn't come in. Let's say John Smith is like, "Yeah, I

[49:56] got you, buddy." And then just keeps on doing what he's doing. And then, okay,

[50:01] well, John didn't show up today. Now, I got to go back out there. Well, now

[50:04] that's another substantiated cycism, right? Hey, John, what happened? Where

[50:08] you coming? You said you were going to come in again. And then, oh, I'll come

[50:11] in tomorrow. And then they don't come in again.

[50:14] » And then they won't answer phone calls. >> And now it's another substantiated site.

[50:18] You see what I'm saying? Like it's it's personnel power going back and forth.

[50:21] » It encourages people to do what they're supposed to do.

[50:24] » Right. Right. We don't want to use it for bad, but we also don't want to

[50:28] continue to have to >> go out there and spend the taxpayer

[50:33] dollars because John Smith doesn't want to do what he wants to do.

[50:36] » There there does come at one point it does become a misdemeanor charge.

[50:40] » Yeah. That that would be about the second or third visit. We don't want to

[50:44] go out there and just start slapping those down. But if But if anyone at All

[50:49] Smith doesn't want to cooperate, there are legal avenues to to go. We we

[50:54] haven't >> we haven't had to do that. We are we're

[50:57] a very good building department. We're filled with really good uh people who

[51:01] know how to communicate. So, you know, we're pretty solid right now.

[51:04] » Any other questions for Jeremy? [snorts] >> No. All right. I'll [clears throat]

[51:09] » entertain a motion. >> Uh Madam Chair, I move we approve

[51:12] ordinance 02026-05 as presented.

[51:15] » Okay. >> Second. I have a motion and a second.

[51:18] Any discussion? Would you like to roll call vote?

[51:24] » Candy. >> Mr. Lan.

[51:26] » Yeah. >> Mr. Rifford.

[51:27] » Yes. >> Mr. Reed.

[51:28] » Yes. >> Mr. Parr.

[51:29] » Yes. Dr. >> Yes.

[51:32] [clears throat] >> All right. Amendment of the FI2026 2027

[51:38] budget that exceeds the statutory limit of the 1%

[51:41] R2026-71.

[52:01] » [sighs]

[52:06] » This is our FY27 budget amendment hearing.

[52:13] Just a little background, we have three items. Item one, on June

[52:19] 9th, 2026, the board of supervisors voted to approve resolution R2650

[52:25] ratifying the pre-auction property purchase contract for acquisition of 683

[52:30] acres in Livingston, Virginia property for a total purchase price of 8,925,000.

[52:38] Item two, the ban 2022 bond anticipation note principal balance of $2,600,000

[52:47] is due in August 2027 for the other piece of park and property purchased in

[52:51] 2022. This amount may be refinanced in conjunction with financing of item one.

[52:58] Item number three. During the joint meeting with the Nelson County Service

[53:02] Authority on June 30th, 2026, the board of supervisors agreed by consensus to

[53:07] provide a loan to NCSA for Wintergreen Wastewater Treatment Plant DEEQ consent

[53:12] order costs in the amount of $3,100,000. The 3.1 million is a maximum figure and

[53:19] the actual final amount may be less. These funds remain as part of the

[53:23] general fund balance until they are expended and will be dispersed to NCSA

[53:28] on an as needed requested basis.

[53:36] We are holding a public hearing tonight on the proposed FY27 budget amendment

[53:40] for state code section 15.2-2507 -2507

[53:44] which says that any budget amendment which exceeds 1% of the total

[53:48] expenditure shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by

[53:52] publishing a notice of the meeting and a public hearing in accordance with

[53:56] section 15.2-1427 1427 and the board may adopt the

[54:00] amendment at the advertised meeting following conduct of public hearing.

[54:10] On July 14th, 2026, the board of supervisors authorized a public hearing

[54:15] pursuant to state code section 15.2-2507 via adoption of resolution R2026-563.

[54:24] Budget amendment public hearing notice was published in July 23rd, 2026 and

[54:29] July 30th, 2026 editions of the Nelson County Times. 20 days and 13 days notice

[54:35] prior to the BOS public hearing date. Total expenditures shown in the

[54:39] currently adopted budget are 87,445,150.

[54:46] This is the total excluding transfers. So 1% of the total expenditures is

[54:51] $874,451.50.

[54:56] Total general fund budget amendment request is 12,25,000

[55:01] comprised of the 2026 property purchase and the NCSA loan. This total debt

[55:08] service fund budget amendment request is $2,600,000

[55:12] for the optional refinancing of the 2022 property purchase.

[55:21] The general fund appropriations will hit fund balance on the revenue side and

[55:25] capital outlay and non-epal side. The debt service appropriation

[55:31] will hit a bond bond proceeds account on the revenue side and bond principal

[55:36] account on the expenditure side.

[55:43] So next steps be to conduct the public hearing obtain input from staff if

[55:48] desire consider adoption of resolution R26-71

[55:55] and staff recommends consideration of this budget.

[56:02] » Okay. Any clarifying questions for her before we do public?

[56:07] » Uh, now we could defer a decision on the 3.1 and the 2.6 million. Correct.

[56:14] » Correct. >> And what is the time frame needing to

[56:16] make a decision on those? Well, one of those we don't know quite yet.

[56:21] » Such as the winter waste water treatment facility. What about the refinance? So

[56:27] refinancing, you should have a decision on that at the September meeting once

[56:30] the financing options are presented to you when you decide what course of

[56:34] action you want to take. >> Um but um

[56:39] I think Mr. Payne said earlier that typically deferral would be up to a year

[56:44] » to make a decision but doesn't sound like we'll need that much time.

[56:48] » I was just that would be my only suggestion.

[56:51] » We are going to perform. Yes.

[56:57] Thank you. >> So on the 2.6 we would be deferring

[57:00] paying interest only on the 2.6. >> No, we're deferring

[57:03] » the whole thing essentially >> on the whole thing

[57:06] » until we get our financing. >> Yes.

[57:08] » Okay. Yes. >> This is part of the process.

[57:12] » Okay. Um we are going to open the public hearing for resolution R2026-71

[57:19] amendment of the FI26 27 budget.

[57:24] Mr. Bane

[57:30] [clears throat]

[57:37] Steven Bane [clears throat] Steven Bane 624 Nellis Ford. This has been a very

[57:44] difficult budget for FY27. And now there is the question of whether

[57:49] to amend the FY27 budget in August or maybe later [clears throat] with three

[57:55] transactions totaling $14.6 million. In terms of amending the budget

[58:03] in terms of financial management, it would be better to leave the

[58:06] transactions as variances since that is what they are. The bigger issue is

[58:12] [clears throat] the discussion of the transactions themselves.

[58:16] The service authorities short-term stop gap plan totaling $4.1 million is a

[58:23] terrible expenditure for Nelson County. It is a waste of money due to unforced

[58:28] errors. The county has been painted into the corner and that must be addressed.

[58:34] Nelson County now owns 1,000 acres of Larkin property at a price of $12

[58:40] million. There's no plan plan for the land and the county paid more than

[58:45] $12,000 per acre. I believe it is mistake for a government entity to be a

[58:51] land owner. Period. As evidenced by the earlier purchase of the 300 acres, the

[58:57] county has the record of kicking the can down the road. The county been paying

[59:03] interest only, I believe, on the 300 acre purchase since 2022.

[59:09] That is not sound f uh financial management. Again, the county is painted

[59:16] into the corner. With the 683 acre property purchase, the unassigned fund

[59:23] balance for Nelson County will drop to 12.5 million

[59:29] from the February 25th report from Davenport. This is so much slower than

[59:35] anything we've seen in the last several years, if not longer. Assuming financing

[59:42] of [clears throat] the 683 acre property purchase, Nelson County's debt will

[59:47] spike to $50 million. That should be a cause for concern. Nelson County is

[59:55] depleting cash and then printing money with more debt.

[1:00:00] This should be a wakeup call. I heard recently that it's a good thing that

[1:00:06] Nelson County has plenty of debt capacity available. For the board

[1:00:12] majority, please don't buy into that center. I heard recently that the county

[1:00:17] taxes are too low, attracting people from neighboring counties and the taxes

[1:00:22] should be increased. Please don't buy into that sentiment.

[1:00:27] What I'm seeing is is is really not fiscal stewardship for Nelson County.

[1:00:33] I'm concerned that Nelson County is losing its way. For the board majority,

[1:00:39] please use this as a wakeup call on behalf of your constituents. Thank you.

[1:00:46] [clears throat]

[1:00:54] That's the end of our signup list. Is there anyone else that would like to

[1:00:57] speak? All right, hearing none. Just going to

[1:01:00] end the public hearing for resolution 2026-71.

[1:01:08] Um it was I did speak to Mr. Payne um and it it was a suggestion to defer

[1:01:16] um until we knew more information at least on on two of these

[1:01:22] um amendments. So, >> and this does not impact the transaction

[1:01:26] itself, correct? >> On the purchase of property?

[1:01:30] » No, I mean we would ask a board to approve the $8,925,000

[1:01:36] piece, >> right?

[1:01:37] » And that that would um ensure that the transaction would not

[1:01:43] be. >> Got it. So, we just need to approve that

[1:01:45] portion and then the other two defer uh in terms of the

[1:01:54] In if I was reading the resolution, uh, it would amend it to reflect the

[1:02:02] purchase of the Larkin property and deferring the refinance of the 2.6

[1:02:07] million and the loan of the Nelson County Service Authority for winter

[1:02:10] grade of the 3.1 million.

[1:02:20] » That's a motion. If that was you, if you're ready for that,

[1:02:22] » I'm ready for that. >> Madame Chair.

[1:02:24] » Yes. >> I move that we approve the following

[1:02:27] amended resolution of R2026-63 to reflect uh deferring the refinancing

[1:02:36] of the 2022 Larkin Property Purchase in the amount of 2.6 million and deferring

[1:02:41] the Nelson County Service Authority loan of 3.1 million for the Wintergreen

[1:02:45] Wastewater Treatment Plant. >> Second.

[1:02:50] Is that clean enough to go? >> He did the correct resolution number.

[1:02:55] » R2026-63. No, 71.

[1:02:58] » It's 71. >> That one.

[1:03:02] That's authorizing the public hearing. >> All right. Um, so

[1:03:16] yeah, there we go. All right, that's easy. That's way easier than what I

[1:03:19] believe. Uh, Madam Chair, I amend my motion.

[1:03:22] » Okay. >> Uh, Madam Chair, I move we approve

[1:03:26] resolution R2026-71 uh with just the 8.9 million uh

[1:03:35] $8,925,000 for the purchase of the Len property and

[1:03:39] deferring the 3.1 million and the 2.6 6 million to uh next month or at a later

[1:03:47] date. Second at a later date mean let us know.

[1:03:53] » All right. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

[1:03:56] » Um just just one clarification. Um we don't have to include the 2.6

[1:04:02] million in this because that's already current and already being and and we're

[1:04:07] already paying on that. >> Yes, that would be an optional

[1:04:10] refinancing because that doesn't until >> Okay. So, we can do that at the same

[1:04:16] time. >> Yeah.

[1:04:18] » Okay. Just checking. Thank you.

[1:04:23] » All right. You want to roll call vote, Candy?

[1:04:33] » I'm sorry. I'm not used to doing it. [laughter] I did it earlier. Mr. Par.

[1:04:38] » Yes. >> Mr. Yes.

[1:04:39] » Mr. Yes. >> Mr. Reed. Yes.

[1:04:42] » Yes.

[1:04:45] » Can I just clarify one thing? Just want um

[1:04:50] 8,925,000 while is coming out of fund balance will

[1:04:55] be returned to fund balance once the financing is complete. Yes.

[1:04:59] » So it's a wash in terms of our fund balance.

[1:05:03] » Yeah.

[1:05:13] We need to >> before the close session, I guess I need

[1:05:16] to publicly announce that we are adding a resolution in other business after the

[1:05:20] close session um on changing the September meeting just so everybody is

[1:05:24] aware. >> After Okay. Yes.

[1:05:26] » Um because it's in other business. >> We can do it now if you want.

[1:05:29] » You can do it now. >> Okay. All right. Well, uh I'll entertain

[1:05:33] a motion on resol resolution 2026-72 then. Madam Chair, I move we adopt

[1:05:40] resolution R202672, Nelson County Board of Supervisors rescheduling of the

[1:05:44] September 2026 regular meeting from Tuesday, September 8th to September

[1:05:52] 15th. >> Okay, I have a motion

[1:05:55] » second >> and a second. Any discussion?

[1:05:59] Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I.

[1:06:02] » All those opposed. Excellent. All right. Um,

[1:06:08] » do you want to take a break before close session?

[1:06:11] » Probably. >> Probably.

[1:06:13] » Yeah, [laughter] >> cuz that might be a long one.

[1:06:16] » How long?

August 11, 2026 Nelson County Board of Supervisors Meeting - Evening Session at 2PM Part 1

Transcript